©Copyright 2018 GEOSCIENCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE
11060 Campus Street • Loma Linda, California 92350 • 909-558-4548
Download PDF
This article was originally published as a chapter in the book “Design and Catastrophe: 51 Scientists Explore Evidence in Nature"
Concepts regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter represent a profound philosophical problem that impacts our insight into ourselves and the world around us.[1] The problem, at least in part, may well be due to the general difficulty in defining what life is. While some thinkers view life as an elaborate, highly sophisticated machine,[2] others avoid such representations. Apparently, the rationale for this rejection is due to the fact that every machine has a maker and a purpose.[3] So, to compare life to a machine is to include both concepts implicitly. Therefore, various arguments are advanced with the specific objective of banishing all need for a purpose or a maker. As a result, one of two alternative approaches characterizes the majority of views about life’s origins. On one hand, it is argued that Intellect -> Matter -> Life. On the other hand, supporters of the evolutionary perspective tend to favor the proposition that Matter -> Life -> Intellect.[4]
This latter view implies that information is the result of life rather than a requirement for it, and that, given enough time and favorable circumstances, matter itself—by chance—spontaneously gives rise to life, which can then be further molded by evolutionary processes. This is a faith position, because it is not clear what kind of evidence could either support or challenge it in the mind of the “faithful”.
Intelligence is clearly the only well-demonstrated, known source of information. It is interesting that it never requires a great deal of effort to come to such a conclusion. No one reads a book without the implicit understanding that it had an author and probably an assortment of other ancillary participants such as secretaries, project managers, editors, publishers, promoters, and booksellers. Yet, we are expected to believe that the amount of genetic information present in a cell, from the most modest bacterium up to the level of human cells, somehow arose through processes no more involved than random chance and natural selection. This is asked of us, in spite of the presence of well-documented but underappreciated repair mechanisms, whose sole task is to maintain cellular genetic integrity in the face of physical, chemical, and biological hazards. Cells with flawed or weakened repair machinery are not observed somehow undergoing enhanced evolutionary progress. Instead, they are subject to faster senescence and death. Alternatively, if they cannot keep up with needed genetic repairs, cells may become cancerous, ultimately hastening death of the entire organism. Then, contrary to evolutionary thinking, this would suggest that integrity of genetic information is a requirement for life rather than merely a product of it.
Reports of spontaneous generation of some simple biomolecules more than 50 years ago are still used to bolster the arguments that life could arise under very primitive conditions, given availability of simple materials and adequate supply of energy[5] as well as some specialized environments and transport mechanisms.[6] However, even if this was somehow accomplished, it would still be a long way from an initiation of life. The reason is quite simple: it is easy for a living cell to die; it is not easy to bring a dead cell back to life. In fact, this has never been done, not even with a dead bacterium.
Consider an analogy with a symphony orchestra. Skilled artisans in specialized workshops or factories produce every musical instrument. But a pile of instruments does not an orchestra make. If we added a group of appropriately willing people, that would still be woefully insufficient. The people need to be skilled musicians for specific instruments. However, having access to highly skilled and motivated musicians, there is also a need for an appropriately orchestrated musical composition, hence the need for a composer. Specifically, each musician needs access to the musical partition suitable for his or her particular instrument. Then, there is the requirement for a maestro and a suitably comfortable and lit environment to serve as venue. Every one of these components requires a lot of deliberate, careful, dedicated effort. Nothing is left to happenstance. Yet, even the most beautifully played symphony pales in comparison to the level of functional complexity present even in a most modest bacterium.
To appreciate why it is hard to bring a dead bacterium back to life, consider what happens at its death. Perforating the cell membrane by some means, for example, results in the loss of a number of ion gradients across the membrane. Consequently, production of ATP, the energy currency for the cell, is stopped. All energy-requiring processes stop. All of the hundreds and thousands of internal reactions reach an equilibrium. At this stage, sealing of the membrane hole is a relatively simple task, and this may happen spontaneously. Yet the cell remains dead. To resurrect this cell, the various specific ion gradients need to be restored, and a critical number among the hundreds or thousands of reactions need to be reset so that they can productively function in a coordinated manner with each other. This is a technological nightmare.
Alternatively, resurrection could also be achieved by moving relative time backward. Resurrections simply cannot and do not occur spontaneously, even if most or all of the biomaterials are in place. From this perspective, the requirements for the origin of even the most primitive living cell are at least as daunting as the requirements for a resurrection. This is because prior to life’s origin all the necessary biomaterials first need to come together. However, having biomaterials and all the genetic information, though necessary, is not sufficient. All constituents need to be in just the right concentrations so that numerous key reactions, among thousands, are reset to their respective dynamic steady states.
The various models for the origin of life will likely continue to be promoted until a deeper appreciation takes hold about what life actually is. Is it something akin to musical instruments, the musicians, or the orchestration? Or, is it like the music of a well-played symphony?
NOTES
[1] AI Oparin. Modern concepts of the origin of life on the earth. Scientia 1978; 113(1–4):7–18.
[2]M Polanyi. Life transcending physics and chemistry. Chemical Engineering News 1967; 45(35):54–66.
[3] Oparin, op. cit.
[4] Oparin, op. cit.
[5] JL Bada. How life began on earth: a status report. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 2004; 226(1–2):1–15.
[6] EE Stueken, RE Anderson, JS Bowman, WJ Brazelton, J Colangelo-Lillis, AD Goldman, SM Som, JA Baross. Did life originate from a global chemical reactor? Geobiology 2013; 11(2):101–126.
Danilo Boskovic is a professor of biochemistry in the School of Medicine at Loma Linda University. He holds an MSc in Pathology and a PhD in Biochemistry from Queen’s University at Kingston. He authored and coauthored a number of articles about perinatal and postnatal stressors of the newborn and is currently the principal investigator of a research project on risk factors associated with neonatal intraventricular hemorrhage.